On Point

State v. James E. Gray, 225 Wis.2d 39, 590 N.W.2d 918 (1999), affirming unpublished decision
For Gray: Helen M. Mullison

Issue/Holding: Gray was originally convicted of three counts. On postconviction motion, the trial court vacated and dismissed with prejudice one count for lack of proof, and ordered a new trial on a second count. The third count conviction, for which Gray had received probation, remained viable. However,

State v. Carl Kaminski, 2009 WI App 175
For Kaminski: Donald T. Lang, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding: An SVP expert may rely on the respondent’s unproven prior misconduct in deriving his or her opinion. The § 904.04(2) “preliminary relevance” requirement, State v. James E. Gray, 225 Wis.2d 39, 59-61, 590 N.W.2d 918 (1999); State v. Landrum, 191 Wis. 2d 107,

State v. Matthew A.B., 231 Wis.2d 688, 605 N.W.2d 598 (Ct. App. 1999)
For Matthew A.B.: Mary E. Waitrovich, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue: Whether a juvenile adjudication is admissible in a Ch.980 proceeding, § 938.35(1) notwithstanding.

Holding: A juvenile adjudication is admissible.

§ 938.35(1) expressly prohibits admissibility of a juvenile court disposition except for certain enumerated exceptions which don’t include Ch. 980 proceedings.

State v. Tory L. Rachel, 224 Wis.2d 571, 591 N.W.2d 920 (Ct. App. 1999).
For Rachel: Donald T. Lang, SPD, Madison Appellate.

Holding:

Tory L. Rachel appeals a nonfinal order of the trial court ruling that the findings and conclusions of a court-appointed expert are subject to discovery in a ch. 980, STATS., proceeding. Because the rules of civil procedure, chs. 801 to 847,

State v. Fredrick J. Brissette, 230 Wis.2d 82, 601 N.W.2d 678 (Ct. App. 1999)
For Brissette: John D, Lubarsky, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue: Whether failure to hold a probable cause hearing within 72 hours of the filing of a Ch. 980 petition causes the court to lose competency to proceed.

Holding: The 72-hour requirement for conducting the probable cause hearing does not begin running if the subject is in custody pursuant to independent process,

State v. Yolanda M. Spears, 227 Wis.2d 495, 596 N.W.2d 375 (1999), affirming State v. Spears, 220 Wis.2d 720, 585 N.W.2d 161 (Ct. App. 1998)
For Spears: Richard D. Martin. SPD, Milwaukee Appellate

Issue/Holding: Spears killed the “victim” (Young) after he assaulted her and took her purse. She entered an Alford plea to a homicide charge. At sentencing, a dispute arose as to whether Young actually used force in taking her purse (no dispute,

State v. Richard D. Yakes, 226 Wis.2d 425, 595 N.W.2d 108 (Ct. App. 1999)

Holding: Defendant’s adultery, failure to pay child support, and status as a bankrupt “were all appropriate factors relating to Yakes’ character and personal history.”

State v. David J. Gardner, 230 Wis. 2d 32, 601 N.W.2d 670 (Ct. App. 1999)
For Gardner: Steven P. Weiss, SPD, Madison Appellate

Gardner’s 30-year sentence is upheld as a proper exercise of discretion.

State v. Harry S. Bernstein, 231 Wis.2d 392, 605 N.W.2d 555 (Ct. App. 1999)
For Bernstein: Mary E. Waitrovich, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue: After the state requests then withdraws a request for jury in a Ch. 980 proceeding, must trial to the court be premised on the respondent’s personal consent to this withdrawal?

Holding: Under § 980.05(2) the respondent’s consent to the state’s withdrawn assertion of jury trial need not be personal,

State v. Oto Orlik, 226 Wis.2d 527, 595 N.W.2d 468 (Ct. App. 1999)
For Orlik: Steven P. Weiss, SPD, Madison Appellate

Holding: Trial court lacks authority, under §§ 969.01 & 969.03, to impose no-contact order as condition of bail for someone who remains incarcerated. However, the separate procedure authorized in § 940.47 may be utilized in such a situation.